Your guide to the questions at the heart of the multi-million dollar legal stoush between
During the past couple of years, a legal battle between the GP corporate
It is of interest to many doctors because it appears to relate to an issue that's wrapped in much emotion for the medical profession.
When GPs sign up to work for a corporate, are they customers being offered the facilities and services needed to practise their vocation — for instance, the medical centre, the administration staff, the nursing staff?
Or are they in fact part of the commercial infrastructure used by the corporate to operate its medical centres and attract patients?
It is important to stress that the actual legal questions at the heart of
The courts have been asked to rule on whether the historic upfront payments made by the medical centre operator to its doctors were of a capital nature, and as such, not deductible against its assessable income.
And this is a complex area of tax law. As is no doubt familiar to all,
Medical practitioners at the centres conduct their own practice, but all the facilities and support services they require, including reception and billing services, are provided by
Historically, the typical arrangement used by
Doctors entering into such arrangements in the past usually agreed to conduct their medical practice from an
Between
This meant that
The court considered the purpose of the lump sum payments and found:
- The medical centres did not provide healthcare services to the public. They carried on a business of providing a comprehensive range of services and facilities to doctors at
Idameneo's medical centres. -
The doctors were the medical centres' customers. The more doctors who were engaged at the medical centres, the more profitable those medical centres would be for
Idameneo and ultimatelyHealius . -
Although the doctors each entered into a sale agreement, they did not actually sell their practice to
Idameneo . Each doctor continued to run their own medical practice atIdameneo's medical centres; and so it was the doctors who provided services to patients. -
The lump sum payments were not capital in nature, and so the deductions claimed by
Healius were available.
However, the ATO (strictly speaking, the Tax Commissioner) appealed this ruling to the full federal court; and in a decision handed down last month, the initial decision was reversed.
It's worth looking at the reasons why.
Again, the question at the heart of the appeal was whether payment of the lump sums to doctors was properly characterised as capital (were the payments for GPs part of the company's infrastructure, along with its bricks and mortar?) or for revenue.
According to the full court, the chief if not critical factor in determining the character of the lump sum payments was to look at the advantage that
This required a "practical commercial inquiry" and a "wide survey and exact scrutiny of the taxpayer's activities", the full court said.
In direct contrast to the court's earlier decision, it was held that the nature of the business conducted by
The judges found it was much more than that.
The arrangements with practitioners for which they were paid lump sums "were not directed to simply securing each practitioner as a customer of
The arrangements were essential to the operation of the medical centres because "they enabled
medical services".
In other words, the lump sum payments were more than just payments intended to secure GPs as mere customers.
According to the court, each lump sum was a payment for the practitioner to: (a) cease operating an existing practice; (b) commence trading as part of an
Securing the commitment of doctors in these respects was an essential part of
Together with the physical assets comprising each medical centre, the commitments formed the commercial infrastructure that was then deployed by
Hence, the lump sum payments were capital outgoings; and consequently, the tax refunds sought by
The full court distinguished earlier decisions in which expenditure incurred to secure customers was held to be deductible from revenue.
One case cited was
In this case, BP entered into agreements with service station owners to sell only BP branded petrol.
Each owner agreed to brand their site as a BP site for the term of the agreement. BP paid a lump sum to each owner and claimed the lump sums as allowable deductions.
It was held in that case:
- BP was already set up to provide petrol when it entered into those agreements, and it did not in that sense need the agreements as part of its profit-making structure. The agreements were not part of its infrastructure. However, in BP's market of operation, it was necessary to follow the practices of BP's competitors and enter into the agreements with service station owners in order to secure sales of petrol.
- The payments were made as part of
- the cost of performing income-earning operations.
- These lump sums were therefore paid on revenue account and were allowable as deductions.
Another case cited by the Federal Court was NAB vs Commissioner of Taxation (1997).
Here, NAB made a payment to the Commonwealth to secure the exclusive right to be the lender under a housing scheme for the Australian Defence Force.
It was held in that case:
- The bank did not need to secure the contract with the Commonwealth in order to be in business. It already had the resources and financing facilities to be able to provide the loans.
- The upfront payment was merely to secure a bundle of loan contracts as part of operating NAB's business.
- The payment was therefore made as part of the trading activities of the bank, and hence an allowable deduction.
In short, BP and NAB were paying for future custom, whereas
In the federal court's words: "It was not enough for
"It also needed to secure arrangements with medical practitioners by which they would commit to [
Each time
Without that commitment from its doctors to conduct their practice at an
There is a long line of case law that considers the characterisation of payments as revenue or capital outgoings.
As mentioned, this is a complex area of taxation law, and at the time of writing,
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Level 5, 179 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
WA 6000
Tel: 89321 0522
URL: www.pmlawyers.com.au
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source